9911796707
TMI Blog1920 (7) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst respondents claiming a declaration that they were entitled to certain rights of pre-emption against the several defendants, who were vendees of different shares and interests in some 6,813 kanals in the village of Tazagram. 2. The following table will show at once the dates of the conveyances which gave rise to the rights of pre-emption and take dates and numbers of the suits brought in connection with those rights. > Date of Conveyance. No. of Suit. Date of Suit. 15th October, 1913 ... ... 88 of 1914 15th October, 1914 24th " " ... ... 96 of 1914 22nd " " 21th November, 1913 ... ... 97 of 1914 22nd " " 23rd January, 1914 ... ... 100 of 1914 26th " " 1st December, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mption, but appointed out that a mere claim to such a right was not a claim to any right 'to property within the meaning of Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, and that the right of pre-emption could not be enforced by a mere declaratory decree. 5. So far as the technical objection is concerned, it would appear' to be well founded. The claim for a declaration would necessarily require to be followed by farther consequential relief, M-the order were to be effectual. They, therefore, could not have proceeded under Section 42 .of the Specific Relief Act, nor is a claim for a bare declaration of right to pre-empt the right way of asserting the right to pre-emption; and when the difficulties in the-plaintiffs' way were pointed ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee. In a case such as the present, where the right sought is one involving the dispossession, of a perfectly: lawful purchaser of property, it is not, in their Lordships" opinion, quite accurate to way that a plea that such a suit has not been brought within the proper period of time limited by the Act is a technical plea, if by a technical plea w meant a pea which assert rights which have no merits for their supports. But their Lordships are in full agreement with the statement made by the Judicial Commissioner that, "however defective the frame of the suit may be, the plaintiffs' object was to preempt the land; their cause of action was one and the same whether they sued for possession or not." If this be so, all -that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessed the value of the lauds sold. Appeals were taken from these decrees, some to the Court of the Divisional Judge, others to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of the North-West Frontier Province, according to value. Those' lodged in the Court of the Divisional Judge were subsequently transferred to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, who heard all the appeals together. He then decided that four of the appeals Were out of time, as they ought to have been filed in the Court of the Divisional Judge and not in his Court, and he refused to return these appeals for presentation to the Divisional Judge's Court in order that the latter might consider the question as to whether the time could be extended, and he himself declin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd being brought on he was entitled to dismiss them. So far, therefore, as all the appeals are concerned they fail, and their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that they should be dismissed with costs. 11. The respondents have, however, instituted a cross-appeal, and this is an appeal against the valuation which has been made of the property sold. Now this Board will not interfere with any question of valuation unless it can be shown that some item has improperly been made the subject of valuation or excluded therefrom, or that there is some fundamental principle affecting the valuation which readers it unsound. On the mere of value of admitted items their Lordships will net interfere. Now in the present instance the case lodged by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
